Welcome to the Piano World Piano ForumsOver 2 million posts about pianos, digital pianos, and all types of keyboard instruments
Join the World's Largest Community of Piano Lovers
(it's free)
It's Fun to Play the Piano ... Please Pass It On!

Looking at the manual, I'm not certain but it seems like you might be able to do simultaneous MIDI playback and WAV recording directly on the AP450.

I must say the manual is not easy to understand ... the more so because there is no screen, and buttons are used for several functions I was able to make a wav record of a midi record of something I played, but was unable to make the DP accept the .mid file as a recorded song (it is a .DSC file, and it does not look like the .CM2 format of casio midi ...)

After unsuccessfully trying the mid to wav conversion (I learned the midi file format in the process so it's not lost time) I made a new recording on my main computer. Many plug conversions were necessary (I only had RCA jack with enough cable length) but finally it's done. The result is here : dpbsd_v2.0_casio_ap450-2.mp3

After unsuccessfully trying the mid to wav conversion (I learned the midi file format in the process so it's not lost time) I made a new recording on my main computer. Many plug conversions were necessary (I only had RCA jack with enough cable length) but finally it's done. The result is here

The noise floor is much better, but for some reason the stretch test is missing?

When I think about all these pianos, sometimes I get lost which one has which technology, and also sometimes when I look at sample lengths I forget what other pianos had. Also some people here may not have such technical mind to see some things as clear as you do. So my proposition is to make some kind of ranking or tech tree for pianos.

Pianos could have 0-10 note for technical aspects such as loop lengths, stretching amount, velocity layers, velocity blending quality, pedal effect and some of most important tests, eventually frequency and timbre balance (to point out pianos with weird timbre issues). 10 is no looping, 8 velocity layers etc. It could sum up to overall TECHNICAL pianos ranking or tech tree, which will of course not mean that playing experience will give you same conclusions. But it will give us and novice buyers nice and quite objective overview.

You already did the judgment, but it's verbal and in this way hard to gather in one place, like table, tree or ranking; also less understandable than numbers.

Other thing, much more controversial, would be adding keyboard quality note: for progressiveness, weight, sensor numbers. I'm not sure is this good idea, since it may start keyboard discussion war.

I've been asked this via PM a couple of times lately, and would love to comply, but I can't see exactly how.

If the text reviews were more numeric it would make more sense, but they are rather comment driven without rigid categories beyond pro/con/other, and Excel isn't the best at that kind of thing.

Many tests are pass / fail, stretching could be a ratio, attacks and decays are numeric. But there are too many caveats / qualifiers / things to say about almost everything. People might ask for (or I might be tempted to include) some math on the numbers for a grand score, but DPs are such balls of wax I'm kind of against one number summing them all up (rather like IQ, which is absurd on its face).

The DPBSD is really more of a no-go test for a DP you are already seriously considering buying, and not so much a pre shopping weeder. After reading the review you should download the MP3 and critically listen to it (particularly the looping, stretching, and layering tests) so you can make your own esthetic judgements (i.e. can you likely tolerate long term the way they've processed the sample set).

Dewster, there in in this topic about hammer delay we are discussing Casio's highly advertised new(?) hammer delay simulation. I can't see Hammer Delay was directly explored by DPBSD tests so far, but they could possibly significant information about DP quality. It could even help to differentiate between DP component quality separating keyboard and sound synthesis.

To determine is simply the time difference between MIDI Note ON Event and actual sound Attack time.

Time offsets between ppp and fff attack time of the same note: after Casio, there should be a consequent increasing delay from ppp to fff. Measuring Attack Delay for each single note should produce an increasing series of delay values for ppp,pp,p,mf,f,ff,fff. For each of these velocities should be a consequent delay series over all of 88 keys. Ideally, it should give a decreasing value from Low to High notes within one velocity.

If this kind of consequency check failes, it could reveal a contributor to overall jitter, which effects not only playability but even rendering too!

If this Hammer Delay behaviour is not measureable for a DP (ideally overall constant (low) delay values then) it could still be implemented within it's keyboard module and the delayed time values are delivered then to both internal sound synthesis module input and MIDI output.

Time Delay measurement could give important informations especially about SW Instrument: if they include such a Hammer Delay simulation, the MIDI keyboard input should not have it or otherwise it would result in a doubled effect.(It should then be possible to turn effect off at least on one side).

Time Delay Consistency Analysis could include: Same note should produce constant timing for the same MIDI event. Effect of repetitions to delay: should not have any impact on delay. Playing a tone within a chord: should not have any impact on delay.

You have just the AP450 MP3s - do You see it possible to apply some of these measurements with current MIDI? (Or perhaps Yo have some of them built in already I have just overlooked). Thanx. Attila

Just in time for the Xmas season, PW forum member "1John" has supplied us with DPBSD MP3 of the new Yamaha P35! The MP3 (and pix) are of the default piano voice "Grand Piano 1". Those interested can also listen to the compressed layer test:

I've been pretty happy with the P-35. The onboard speakers are only mediocre, and don't sound as good as the P-105. It's still pretty reasonable for this price point though, and doesn't cry out as being bad. I bought it with software piano it mind, and so not that concerned about internal sound generation, but I still often just plug headphones into it for practicing and have been happy with that.

I haven't really played with the other voices much at all, so can't say much about them. I'd be guessing they might be the same as the P-95.

To me the keyboard feels very much like the rest of the current GHS keyboards, and alongside the P-105 at the store I couldn't tell a difference in key feel. It may not be the most realistic, but I find it a pleasant feel. I did prefer the P-155 and CLP-430, but that's a totally different price range.

Analysis reveals fairly typical Yamaha sound technology for this price range. No pedal or key sympathetic resonance; attacks are short; loops are short and quivery / bland sounding and lacking any realistic interbeating or "wobble"; pretty stretched with 29 samples covering 88 notes; stretch group transitions are audible over most of the range.

Looking at the pan and phase views of the layer test doesn't indicate any velocity switching, but the uniform waveform view of this test reveals that this is a single layer sample set. Which doesn't mean there isn't significant timbre variation with velocity, there is over much of the range and it sounds fairly realistic, but it could perhaps be distributed more realistically because the highest 1/3 of velocity range doesn't have much variation. Overall the P35 seems pretty similar to the P85/95 but with somewhat longer decay lengths.

Poking through my past analysis pix archives, the P35 appears to share the same base sample session as the ~$800 USD Yamaha DGX-640. The P35 is currently selling for ~$450, for ~$150 more you could get the P-105 which has multiple layers, pedal sympathetic resonance, and better speakers, though the same GHS keyboard action and the same amount of stretching. Also in the $600 category is the Casio PX-150, which has pedal sympathetic resonance, 4 layers of longer samples, somewhat less stretching, and arguably better keys, though the speaker system is perhaps not as good as the P-105. The low end is kind of a tough place for shoppers (truth be told the mid and high ends aren't much easier).

To determine is simply the time difference between MIDI Note ON Event and actual sound Attack time.

I agree that, given hammer physics, key action to sound event timing is critically important. But there is no way to really tell anything without video or some external timekeeper. MIDI alone is probably not enough.

Not enough indeed, but could be telling. About possible quality issues (consistency) and about whether the claimed overall delay simulation was implemented in sound synthesis module or in keyboard mechanics/output. Important informations both when using the keyboard as a MIDI controller or when using an instrument with MIDI in as a sound generator.

I've been asked this via PM a couple of times lately, and would love to comply, but I can't see exactly how.

If the text reviews were more numeric it would make more sense, but they are rather comment driven without rigid categories beyond pro/con/other, and Excel isn't the best at that kind of thing.

Many tests are pass / fail, stretching could be a ratio, attacks and decays are numeric. But there are too many caveats / qualifiers / things to say about almost everything. People might ask for (or I might be tempted to include) some math on the numbers for a grand score, but DPs are such balls of wax I'm kind of against one number summing them all up (rather like IQ, which is absurd on its face).

The DPBSD is really more of a no-go test for a DP you are already seriously considering buying, and not so much a pre shopping weeder. After reading the review you should download the MP3 and critically listen to it (particularly the looping, stretching, and layering tests) so you can make your own esthetic judgements (i.e. can you likely tolerate long term the way they've processed the sample set).

I agree you can't judge pianos using numbers, but I think you can judge TECHNICAL aspect of sample sets. Of course it would be general and include some simplifications, but for some people this thread may be too complicated to look; their alternative is to not look in DPBSD at all. General note (or a few of them) may also be nice intro to further analysis.

Anyway, even if you want to avoid such thing, it may be nice idea to consequently add short verbal summary to every test.

I agree you can't judge pianos using numbers, but I think you can judge TECHNICAL aspect of sample sets. Of course it would be general and include some simplifications, but for some people this thread may be too complicated to look; their alternative is to not look in DPBSD at all. General note (or a few of them) may also be nice intro to further analysis.

Anyway, even if you want to avoid such thing, it may be nice idea to consequently add short verbal summary to every test.

Thanks for your comments, I do appreciate any feedback!

I think I'm pretty much including short verbal summaries, as well as owner's comments, and further clarification in the form of both pictures and picture captions. If people are afraid of or turned off by specs they probably don't visit this thread much anyway. I could certainly do more to collect things in one spot, but there is the clickable list in the first post, as well as the text file of compiled reviews at the share point that people can consult and pretty much do whatever they want with. Beyond that I'm kind of out of time lately and currently have something of a backlog going just about every project I'm involved with.

That "the intention of the DPBSD is to provide technical analysis of sound, rather than a subjective review" is precisely what limits its usefulness. There's a wealth of data ... and very little useful information.

Though I would not expect to choose a piano based on the information here, it **could** help people narrow their field of search ... if only it were more accessible.

I really think it would help to have a summarized view. Each piano could be judged on a short list of criteria, and each would get a score on each criterion. The scores would be based on the collected DPBSD data.

This summary would not introduce ambiguity or subjectivity. Instead it would drive usability.

dewster: I agree that, given hammer physics, key action to sound event timing is critically important. But there is no way to really tell anything without video or some external timekeeper. MIDI alone is probably not enough.

Quote:

Temperament: Not enough indeed, but could be telling. About possible quality issues (consistency) and about whether the claimed overall delay simulation was implemented in sound synthesis module or in keyboard mechanics/output. Important informations both when using the keyboard as a MIDI controller or when using an instrument with MIDI in as a sound generator.

I did some "light weight" measurements of MIDI timing and hammer delay simulation just as proposed. I did just want to see, how big issue Time Delay in reality was and whether it would be worth to be explored further for all of tested instruments (e.g. by extending the DPBSD test). Here is a short summary of my results (without documenting them in detail).

Methods:I took the DPBSD MIDI 2.0 file and the corresponding audio rendering output from it with following instruments:

Casio PX-350 (as found in the DPBSD Public Library)

Galaxy Vintage-D 1.2 (Produced by own Instrument)

Pianoteq 4.20 (Produced by own Instrument)

Roland rd-700nx (as found in the DPBSD Public Library)

I used Reaper, arranged the MIDI Track and graphical audio track Windows beneath of it. I made an optical comparison of MIDI events and the delay times to the Attack they produced. I estimate a sensitivity (precision) of my method of <= 3ms. I used the DPBSD2.0 sequences of MIDI events a.) of the same C4 note with increasing velocities from 1 to 127, b.) 88 keys Note On with the same velocity I looked at time offests between the MIDI event and corresponding audio attack.

Results:All tested MIDI processors produced sound with no detectable delay (i.e. beyond the precision threshould of the simple methods above).

Conclusions:1. I couldn't find any specific hammer delay simulation with these MIDI to Sound processors. Especially,

no decreasing delays for the increasing key sequence could be detected

no decreasing delays with increasing velocity on the same key could be detected

no incosistent (variable) delay behaviour could be detected

2. Even Casio's PX350 MIDI Synthesis Module didn't included any hammer delay simulation, 3. consequently, if Hammer Delay simulation is implemented, it should be originated completely from the Keyboard Action Output (as Casio actually claimed). 4. If Hammer Delay simulation is implemented with a DP's Keyboard Module, this feature can safely be used in connection with SW-Instruments (provided they behave like the tested ones). 5. Time Delay and its consistency in MIDI Synthesis is probably not a general quality issue for most DP-s I guess.

As a general conclusion I wouldn't regard it now very important to include MIDI Time Delay Check in the DPBSD project, but these results could perhaps be corroborated by some more precise tools and measurements.

I really think it would help to have a summarized view. Each piano could be judged on a short list of criteria, and each would get a score on each criterion. The scores would be based on the collected DPBSD data.

It's an open project and everyone has the same access to the base data as I do. If you want to take some aspect of it in a different direction nothing is stopping you.

Thx, James, I am pleased to learn it now! This information was based on following statements by dewster in his very recent DPBSD review for (the elderly) ES6:

Originally Posted By: dewster

Kawai ES6 Review....Neither pedal nor key sympathetic resonance are present during MIDI playback (this seems to be typical of Kawai DPs) so to evaluate them bajabill manually played the tests and recorded them to the second MP3 file listed above.... Since this issue arises rather often I've added manual sympathetic resonance testing instructions to the dpbsd readme file.....- Date reviewed: 2012-09-05.[/font]

It could be perhaps helpful, James, if You could clarify since when Kawai models should definitely not expose this issue anymore. (Since CAx3 and CNx3 or just since CAx5 and CNx4?)

I would ask dewster then to edit his general remark which in this form could be a bit misleading - his excellent DPBSD page is a most visited central source of information about DPs.

Hello people! I'm new to this fantastic forum, and I have a question about the CP50.I'm using the new firmware (1.2) and I noticed something strange. When I'm playing the CF piano, I noticed that there is a big difference between all the keys under G6 and above this note.The note decay is very short for anything under G6, but at this point, there is some kind of reverb added to the sound. It's clearly audible when the reverb function is set to off. It only happens with the acoustic piano sound, but I find it very annoying. Do you think it's Yamaha's answer to the critics about the very short decay in the high notes?Now it's even worse, because it sounds very artificial.

When I'm playing the CF piano, I noticed that there is a big difference between all the keys under G6 and above this note.The note decay is very short for anything under G6, but at this point, there is some kind of reverb added to the sound. It's clearly audible when the reverb function is set to off. It only happens with the acoustic piano sound, but I find it very annoying.

From the DPBSD test notes (see the OP):

10. The highest keys on a real piano have no damper mechanism. The decay time for these notes is so short that a damper probably wouldn't affect playing much, and undamped strings are sympathetic resonant elements that can add richness to the sound of other played notes. The transition point between dampered and undampered is somewhere between D6 and A6. So obviously notes played above this point should not damp at key up (and obviously the damper pedal should have no influence over these notes either). Almost all digital pianos mimic this behavior by not damping the note at key-up (but probably very few model the sympathetic resonance element).

Great, Dewster! Many thanks for this. I played on a friend's Yamaha p115 or something similar last night and noticed the same behaviour. I don't have much experience with acoustic pianos so I was a bit scared when I heard this. You reassure me! Have a nice day and happy new year to all!

Nobody has uploaded the Kawai Ca95 or Ca65 yet??? I'm dying to see the review!

Very sorry, due to my digital Theremin research (hung up on simulating transformer based LC tanks) there's something of a backlog going with the DPBSD project. The CA95 is in the pipe (along with the ES7). Hopefully this month.

I understood that it was still missing from the collection from the opening post, and indeed I looked for it during my purchasing decision.I am not very experienced in this stuff. I believe I prepared the file right, but let me know if modifications are required.Procedure followed:midi playing from PC to piano over USB midi linkPiano recording sound directly to WAV file.Wav file converted to MP3 192 kBit using iTunes (VBR/CBR unknown).